The Crime of Being Christian? Atheistic State Seizes Theists’ Children

Barnevernet

Photo credit TheNewAmerican.com

We are thankful for another accurate post about the Bodnariu family, authored by  Selwyn Duke, on the New American website. It is one of the few websites that is reporting correctly as to what this case was all about from the beginning, [lack of] religious freedom, and the fact that only later, did the Norwegian Child Protection Services, Barnevernet, secretly removed all mention of religious indoctrination and replaced it with charges of violence against the parents of the 5 children who were removed from their home in Norway. Besides the very well researched article on the Bodnariu case, the author also makes some really great points on the matter of Christian radicalization as it relates to Norway and Sweden:

It’s not surprising that a Scandinavian country would consider Christian inculcation as creating a “disability.” The region is notoriously atheistic; in fact, Sweden is one of the world’s most irreligious nations, with 76 percent of the population claiming to be either “not religious” or “atheist.” And Norway isn’t far behind: A study found that only 14.8 percent of its citizens “have no doubt God exists,” the sixth lowest figure in the world (two of the countries ranking lower are Sweden and Denmark). Anti-Christian prejudice abounds in Scandinavia.

Then there is the interesting matter of “Christian radicalization.” Is this, objectively speaking, a problem? Note that a German study involving 45,000 young people found that increasing religiosity among Christian youths made them less violent (in contrast, increasing religiosity among Muslim youths actually made them more violent). So is an atheistic upbringing, which breeds less violence than a Muslim one but more than a Christian one, preferable?

Moreover, what does “radical” mean, anyway? Galileo was a “radical” when proposing heliocentrism, Pasteur was a “radical” when proposing germ theory, and Alfred Wegener was a “radical” when proposing continental-drift theory. In fact, most legendary scientists became legendary because they were radical — and right.

Unless we’re defining “radical” as extreme deviation from Truth (not so in a relativistic age), all it means is that someone thus labeled has views departing greatly from the mainstream; a man who avers that 2+2=4 in a land where everyone insists it’s 5 is considered a radical. And Norway — in implicitly branding Christian piety a disorder in a world of growing religiosity, and outlawing the worldwide and historical norm of corporal punishment — is certainly a radical among the family of man. And that’s not a radicalism that’s likely to become legendary.

 

Blogosfera Evanghelică

Vizite unicate din Martie 6,2011

free counters

Va multumim ca ne-ati vizitat azi!


România – LIVE webcams de la orase mari